SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:-S.N. Varlava and Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 5049 of 2000. D/d. 5.5.2005.

Montex Glassfibre Industries(P) Ltd. - Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad - Respondent

ORDER

S.N. Varlava, J. - This appeal is against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (in short "CEGAT"), New Delhi dated 22-3-2000.

2. The question is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 52/86 dated 10-2-1986. This notification granted exemption from duty in respect of goods specified in the schedule thereto. Item 11 of the schedule reads as follows:

Sl. No.	Heading or Sub-Heading No.	Description of goods	Rate of duty Conditions
11	7014.00	All goods other than the goods impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish	Twenty per cent, ad valorem.

Thus, it is to be seen that any goods which had been impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish were not entitled to the benefit of notification.

3. As the appellants had claimed benefit of the notification, they were issued show-cause notices. In reply they claimed that their goods were not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics and varnish. They claimed that their goods were coated with resins which were not plastic. They contended that resins are a different item from plastic and therefore they were entitled to the benefit of the notification. Their contention has not been accepted by any of the authorities including CEGAT.

4. Before us it was also sought to be submitted that resins are different from plastic. In our view, it is not necessary to go into the question whether resins are different from plastics. The classification list filed by the appellants describes their own goods as under:

Sl. No.	Full description of each item of the goods produced, manufactured or warehoused including specifications (e.g. size, number of counts, horse power, sort number, etc.) as the case may be together with the description as would appear in the invoice	Tariff Item No. and Sub-Item No. of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 under which the goods fall	Unit of assessment
			Unit
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	Glass fibres (including glass wool and glass filaments) and articles thereof (for example, yarn, woven fabrics), whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish.
1	Glass fabrics other than fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics or varnish	7014.00	KG
	(a) Unvarnished fibre glass cloth/volan silane treated glass cloth,
	(b) Unvarnished fibre glass tape	7014.00	MTR

5. Thus, for the purposes of classification and for the purposes of falling under Tariff Item 7014, the appellants themselves have shown their goods to be impregnated, coated, covered and laminated with plastics or varnish. They cannot be allowed to now contend for the purposes of getting benefit of notification that their goods are not coated with plastic. According to their own classification, their goods are impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics. It is thus clear that they are not entitled to the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal was thus right in so holding. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere.

6. The appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.